The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-06-17
The Interstate Commission Busy

road Company. There were present
President Roberts and General Coun-
eel Scott and Brooks, oil the Pennsyl.
vania Mr.. Hayden and Frank LOOMS,
OF the New York Central; Vice Presi.
dent aud General Manager Chapel,
Mr.. Charlton, general passenger agent,
ard Messrs. Oates and Brown, counsel
for the Chicago and Alton, and many
other persons. The burden OF the
com plant, as explained to the Com
mission by Mr.. b own, on behalf OF
the Chicsgo and Alton, is that the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company and
the Pennsylvania Company have vio-
lated the interstate law in three par
ticulars. In the first place, IL is alleged
that the Pennsylvania Company has
refused to accord to the complainant
equal facilities and advantages with
other roads; in the second place, it
has subjected the complainant to I'M.
due disad vantage, and, in the third
place, II Ia charged that the dtfsnd.
ants have not afforded ell reasonable
facilities for the interchange Of
traffic and passengers. Therefore the
complain ants ask that the Pennsylva-
mia Railroad Company and the Penn.
sylvanis Company be required by the
Commission to afford these facilities.
After Mr.. Brown bad explained the
nature OF the complaint, Mr.. Scott
stated the position OF the Penneylva.
mia Railroad Company, giving In de-
tail history of the negotiations be-
tween the companies leading up to
the refusal to exchange traffic. He
held that the Commission must hold
as the Supreme Court had held in the
case OF the Atchison, Topeka and
santa Fe vs.. the Denver and New Or
leans, that road is not bound to 20
beyond It's own lines for the purpose
OF making facilities. The question
simply stated was whether 1t Is Iea.
sonable regulation for the Pennsylvg-
mia railroad or any other company to
make-that in continuing to sell
through tickets to Kansas City or any
other point II must insist that officers
OF the Their lines shall agree that they
will net tempt the Penney lvania fiji.
GERS by the offer Of commissions. The
broad general question was whether
the Commission would enable a few
lines to continue system which can
only result in actual decentralization
among the officers OF other companies.
When these general statements
had been made there was some
discussion between counsel touch
ing the admission OF certain
facts by both sides to facilitate dis
position OF the case. La answer TO
Mr.. Brown the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company, through MIR. Brooks, ad-
mitted that it had fold through tickets
over the Chicago, Burlington and
Quincy and the Missouri Pacific rail-
roads, during the period of time be-
tween April 5 and May 8, 1887; that
the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy
had not formally signed an agreement
on the frat named date, although 1t
had telegraphed its intention OF doing
so, and that the Missouri Pacific had
not signed the agreement when the
tickets we're sold over its line. In the
last mentioned case, however, 1t was
explained that the sale Of through
tickets had been ordered off, because
the Missouri Pacific had declined to
,ign the agreement according to the
personal aVreemsnt that had been
made.
Mr. Scott INQUIRED of Mr.. Brown II
be would admit that the Chicago and
Alton had Insisted upon the right TO
pay commissions to the agents of The
ats
Mr. Brown pa,d tha. be would make
M snch admission.
Mr. Scott-WsiI. wa will prove Il.
will Won aoraa no, to insist unon that
,igh,9
NJ Rrowp dec,;nad IN aneak for the
NJ the Ch,osgo and Al.
ton
NJ scott-Tbat Ia tho keypel NJ the
ms,tar n Won will make that aoree.
mani WA viii soil vour ticketa
M R,own having admitted that b;s
oon,raov Ma rainsed 10 aiSn tha acraa'
MI NJ Rrnoks nnt n I'm evidence
sasd,na na,anrsnh ~ sh,w that n
hnnnd tho rnsSs - ret,ain from tns
neUmart ~ cnmro iss,ona
NJ schoonmsksr inou;,ad ~ Mr.
p,owr c,aiOoad the ,;nbv to nav com
49, go Ply